You are on page 1of 1

C 262/40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.10.

2004

The applicants contend that the negotiations between CB and — order the Commission to pay the entirety of the recoverable
EB on the processing of securities transactions in respect of costs the amount of which is fixed in the sum of
German registered shares lasted, not for close on two years, but EUR 10 000.
for nine months at most. The reasons for the length of this
period, they argue, lay with EB and not with CB. At no point
did CB have an interest in, let alone the intention of, denying Pleas in law and main arguments:
to EB services which it provides for other clients.
According to the applicant, the Commission had since 1996
The applicants submit further that the fact could not be over- informally allowed the applicant to set up an Info Point
looked during negotiations that the processing of securities Europe. In 2000, the applicant entered into an agreement with
transactions in respect of German registered shares had no the Commission for the creation of an Info Point Europe, in
significance whatever for the exchange of services between CB the applicant's view thereby formalising the situation. In 2004,
and EB. In their calculation of prices the applicants followed the agreement was terminated by the Commission.
the principle that comparable clients should be given equal
treatment. EB, they submit, is not comparable to the group of By this action, the applicant seeks to have the Commission
clients which the Commission has used as the basis for its held contractually liable in order to obtain payment for the
charge of discrimination. supplies rendered by the applicant since 1996 in the context of
its task as a European information centre for the Commission.
The applicants also contend that the Commission never
claimed that Clearstream International S.A. Luxembourg (‘CL’) According to the applicant, the Commission has breached its
was an undertaking with a dominant market position. For that contractual obligations and is liable for interest for late
reason alone it could not have abused any dominant market payment, for services rendered during the festival of Avignon
position. Furthermore, the objectively relevant market was inac- and for the cost of running a European documentation centre
curately defined in the decision. The applicants take the view since 1996.
that the distinction drawn by the Commission between
‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ processing services cannot be based
on objective grounds and is even contradictory. There is, they
argue, only one single objectively relevant market for clearing
and settlement. CB does not have a dominant position on this
objectively relevant market for all clearing and settlement
services. Neither CB nor CI is thus a party to which the rule in Action brought on 29 July 2004 by European Dynamics
Article 82 EC can be addressed. The decision must be quashed SA against the Commission of the European Communities
in any event on grounds of erroneous market definition and —
consequently — of the absence of market domination.
(Case T-303/04)

(2004/C 262/77)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Maison de l'Europe


Avignon Méditerranée against the Commission of the
European Communities An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 July 2004 by European
(Case T-302/04) Dynamics SA, Athens, Greece, represented by Mr S. Pappas,
lawyer.
(2004/C 262/76)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's Contract Notice 2003/S249-
221337 ESP-DIMA;

— annul the Commission's call for tenderers PO/2003/192


An action against the Commission of the European Commu- (ESP-DIMA);
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 July 2004 by Maison de l'Europe — annul the Commission's Decision of 4 June 2004 ranking
Avignon Méditerranée, established in Avignon (France), repre- the offer of European Dynamic's consortium only second
sented by François Martineau, lawyer. after the first successful tenderer;

The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the Commission's Decision of 14 July 2004 rejecting
the applicant's appeals against the award of the tender;

— order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 394 066.76 — order the Commission to pay European Dynamic's legal
in respect of its failure to perform its financial obligations and other fees and expenses incurred in connexion with
to the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée; this application.